Arguments

You can't get something from nothing. Therefore the universe must have always existed. Change my mind.

How do you go about proving you cannot get something from nothing? Talking about time before the Big Bang is meaningless as time came into being with the Big Bang , it’s like asking what is north of north

@DeeThe first law of thermodynamics. You can't create or destroy energy. The energy of the universe,a closed system, has to have always been there,and always will be. Thus the universe has always existed. No big bang.

Actually, it can be argued that "nothing" doesn't exists, that it is just a textual entity... The classical definition of nothing only describes a vacuum but even in the vastness of space between galaxies every cubic inch of the "void" contains something, energy, gravity....

Imagine if you could remove all particles, energy, gravity… everything from a system. You’d be left with a true vacuum. But even at its lowest energy level, there are fluctuations in the quantum vacuum of the Universe. There are quantum particles popping into and out of existence throughout the Universe. There’s nothing, then pop, something, and then the particles collide and you’re left with nothing again. And so, even if you could remove everything from the Universe, you’d still be left with these quantum fluctuations embedded in spacetime.

There are physicists like Lawrence Krauss that argue the “universe from nothing”, really meaning “the universe from a potentiality”. Which comes down to if you add all the mass and energy in the universe, all the gravitational curvature, everything… it looks like it all sums up to zero.

So it is possible that the universe really did come from nothing. And if that’s the case, then “nothing” is everything we see around us, and “everything” is nothing...

The main theory which describes Space-Time and from which the prediction of the Big Bang comes is called General Relativity, from Einstein. This theory has several mathematical solutions and cosmologists worked to determine the most accurate. There are a class of alternatives but they all have the property that the equations which describe this solution have a singularity at T=0T=0. Furthermore when this situation is examined physically it seems that there is a high density of all the Universe's matter there and then. So it is called the Big Bang.

The Singularity means that some terms become infinite and others unhelpfully become zero. So General Relativity has not been able to predict (or retrodict) what happens before, or how this process really began. The general assumption has been that it was some kind of giant Quantum Event. This assumption, when explained using a more complete theory of Quantum Gravity, may yet be correct.

However in the last few years, several mathematical cosmologists have taken seriously the idea that there was a Pre-Big Bang. Part of the reason for this may be because of the Cosmic Background Radiation data from satellites like WMAP. This data shows larger scale structure in the early universe than the older theories would have predicted.

In particular Roger Penrose has developed a view that the period since the Big Bang should be called an aeon, and that there were earlier aeons each infinitely long. This makes the Big Bang a kind of transition period between two aeons. The theory is speculative in several respects, but it is based on some mathematical constructions in General Relativity. This theory is called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC for short).

We could also go the Super-String theory way and think of space-time as a dimension (like length, width, height), in this setting it is considered a fundamental element of reality but is not necessarily "expressed" in every possible universe, it is expressed in our own universe obviously...

The first law of thermodynamics. You can't create or destroy energy. The energy of the universe,a closed system, has to have always been there,and always will be. Thus the universe has always existed. No big bang.

The first law of thermodynamics is conservation of energy, so you are asking if the big bang violates the law of energy conservation because if came out of nothing (this is not the only possibility). The answer is no.

Whether you accept it or not doesn't change the fact that it exists...

The strength of the gravitational attraction between two objects represents the amount of gravitational energy in the field which attracts them towards each other. When they are infinitely far apart, the gravitational attraction and hence energy approach zero. As two such massive objects move towards each other, the motion accelerates under gravity causing an increase in the positive kinetic energy of the system. At the same time, the gravitational attraction - and hence energy - also increase in magnitude, but the law of energy conservation requires that the net energy of the system not change. This issue can only be resolved if the change in gravitational energy is negative, thus cancelling out the positive change in kinetic energy. Since the gravitational energy is getting stronger, this decrease can only mean that it is negative.

In general relativity, the energy content of a region is given in terms of a stress-energy tensor. The elements of this tensor are not given by general relativity itself and can differ depending on what matter and fields are present. To try to draw general conclusions about what is allowed and forbidden in general relativity, physicists have tried to place restrictions called energy conditions on the properties of the stress-energy tensor. These energy conditions take the form of requiring certain quantities derived from the stress energy tensor to be positive since such restrictions forbid things like the existence of singularities outside black holes, the non-existence of traversable wormholes and that sort of thing. Fields and matter that violate such restrictions are said to have negative energy. There are lots of subtle mathematical results on the extent to which violations of the energy conditions might be possible.

Thanks for trying, but that makes zero sense. It sounds a lot like playing with numbers so they get what they are looking for. Kind of like renormalization when you have an infinity pop up in your calculations.

It may be that you can't make sense of it, for whatever reasons... But to me and most (if not all) physicists and mathematicians, it is perfectly sensible... We know the reality of gravitational fields and quantum fields and those wouldn't work without the concept of negative energy...

The theory of Big Bang does not state that something came from nothing. It states instead that the very question on where all of this came from makes no sense, since it implies a causative connection - but the Big Bang created our spacetime, and any causative connection can only exist within that spacetime. In other words, "before" the Big Bang, there was no time, hence no causative connection between "before" and "after" can be formed.

The Big Bang theory is an empirical one, based on extrapolation of the phenomena we observe into the past. There may not be a strict physical explanation possible for how or "why" it happened, but everything indicates that it did. Cosmic background radiation is probably the most famous piece of evidence, which nobody has ever managed to explain without involving the Big Bang - but there are countless other pieces, and it is hard to imagine how they all together can be explained without involving some form of the Universe expansion, starting at the very first moment of its existence and continuing to this day.

No I am not. You cannot explain what anything is. You always have to refer to something else. It is all circular. You can't explain mass without referring to energy. You can't explain matter at all. Fields are implied, NOT detected. Describe a photon to me. You cannot, because you don't know what the heck it is. You guys pretend to, but don't really know a single thing.

That is because our language is fundamentally circular. Try to define "cucumber" without invoking other definitions - you cannot. You may say that cucumber is a vegetable, but then you have to define what a vegetable is. And this goes on forever.

That does not mean that we do not know what all these words stand for.

In my limited opinion I think we all would do well to observe the difference between uncertain science and science that has been established beyond reasonable doubt. My justification for this stems from the simple fact that the the majority of published findings in scientific research are false. Mind you all that this isn't a simple case of "Whoopsie-Daisy". For Scientific research to be published, it is required to have already gone through extensive peer scrutiny, testing and reproduction. So to say that "Most" published findings (51% or more) are simply false speaks VOLUMES about the scientific research that's already floating around in the general public that has been assumed as "Beyond reasonable doubt" that's actually just trash that can't be substantiated.

That said, I love Science. I don't want anyone here to think that I'm biased against it, it's one of my favorite subjects and of all scientific fields I particularly enjoy Psychology. So not only do I really like it, I like the version of it that comes with the absolute most vague principles and that (In general) can't be very well proven because of the Human factors involved. The reason I love Science is because it has rules, rules that cannot be broken that were written by Humans, these rules are supposed to prevent the aforementioned issue from happening but in reality they seldom stop people from submitting junk science to our Society.

Now this isn't to say that the Big Bang Theory is junk science itself. There's some interesting theories evolving around the theory itself and I enjoy reading about them. The issue with the Big Bang Theory is that not only was it not observed by anyone, it cannot ever be observed in any way, shape or form. Publications have been made with claims that indirect observation of the Big Bang Theory has been accomplished but in reality, the theories don't hold up to scrutiny.

In order for something to have achieved "Theory" status in the Scientific Community, it must have been subjected to the Scientific Method. This Method requires that the subject matter in question be observed, that can be done directly or indirectly as with @Plaffelvohfen 's example of the wind, you cannot observe it directly but you can measure it and there is a metric established to do so. Unfortunately with the Big Bang Theory there's no process of indirect observation that can be applied because of how long ago it allegedly happened and because measurements were not in place to record anything that came as a result of the event. So any presumption of an element that we can observe today being tied directly to the Big Bang Theory is just that...a presumption.

Secondly, in order for a Theory to be established, you must be able to measure whatever it is that is being proposed. The Big Bang can't be measured because we don't have the slightest clue of the scope of its magnitude.

Next comes experimentation. Now without being able to directly or indirectly observe the Big Bang and without the ability to accurately measure its scope and magnitude...how on Earth do you go about building an experiment for it? With unknown variables? How many unknown variables can exist in an experiment before the results of said experiment can't be accurately attributed to any one thing? The answer is one.

Now of course formulating, testing, and modifying hypotheses are part of the process but again...how would you hypothesize with any degree of accuracy without knowing all the variables, the measurements for those variables and without being able to observe in any way the event that you're suppose to be hypothesizing about? I suppose process of elimination could be used to a degree but, again, with the number of unknown variables being...unknown, you'll get no degree of accuracy from this process.

Lastly is a commonly forgotten ritual in the Scientific Community and is simultaneously the process by which most of the published research in the Scientific Community is being discredited for: Reproducibility. None of the alleged occurrences in the Big Bang Theory can be reproduced and attempts to do so have actually resulted in revelations of how wrong we were about how atoms were formed. Now I realize there are countless events and things in our universe that cannot be directly observed to one degree or another, and we can still deduce logically about them right? Yes, we can. But when you consult the Scientific community about those areas, they'll still admit that there's much to be learned, a great deal that we do not know and that without further study...we can't say for certain as much as we'd like to.

In summary, I can respect the Big Bang Theory as what it is, a theory. Absence of evidence is never evidence of absence, but on the other side of that coin...to stand tall and shout from the mountains that the Big Bang is "Fact" or "Well beyond reasonable doubt" is simply intellectually dishonest. Any respectable Scientist will tell you that there's more information that we don't know about it than we do which means that the majority of the theory is still "Yet to be understood" as it almost always has been.

"If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".

Something, that lacks existence can not effect it's own HOWEVER the universe did not always exist.

Before I explain why the big bang is a fallacy.

Space time is the evaluation of linear time in space.

Since the universe had a beggining, the same way light years are measured in periodic distance, you can measure that the universe had a beggining.

The reasons the big bang is fallacy:

1. You can not fit mass into zero volume2. Explosions only happen in two instances: The introduction of energy into a closed system

The loss of nuclear power in the atomic structure of molocueles.

The reason stars implode is because they lose nuclear fuel and the mass effectively is pulled into the objects gravitational field.

The introduction of energy into a closed system that causes an explosion however makes quick work of the nonsense of the big bang theory.

First and foremost if all the matter in the universe was condesnsed into a small dot it would be insufficient to cause the existence of the universe as there would not be enough matter to effectively cause anything.

Explosions are destructive to matter if you haven't noticed. The loss of nuclear fuel destablizes the molecular structure of atoms. That type of explosion has zero potential to cause anything.

An explosion where the introduction of energy added to a closed system however would split the atomic mass that exploded into equal half's. The problem with that is, when energy is introduced into a closed system, explosions do not cease to occur.

Now as far as the universe always existing you run into a logical problem.

An eternal universe that has always existed in it's perpetual state is not subject to change or changes.

If you have a 3 d modeling software, create objects in the software. Assign physics to the objects such as gravity. Create a point of expansion and turn add a disformer to the objects. Turn on collision and then give them angular momentum and create the physical property for an explosion.

Watch none of them escape the gravitational force of each and every object, watch them collide until they turn into dust.

The issues raised are very real and they should be taken more seriously by everyone... Sadly, since it would require a consensual global self-enforcement of a heuristic approach to practicing anything relating to science, we can safely presume that it won't be an easy task to implement any possible solutions because: money, politics, individual beliefs, morality and just plain indifference to the problem...

We'll never get the perfect system but we can certainly improve, all that is lacking is the will to...

Human intelligence makes possible all the conflicting views expressed on this page. Now, how did human intelligence come into being? Where did it come from? Was it created by the Big Bang ? Or was it created by a supernatural being: God?

Agreed. There was a time period when scientific research and study was heavily controlled by a select few, powerful organizations. Standards were higher at those times but unfortunately those same organizations were responsible bottle-necking and strangling scientific advancement. I think we're better off with the freedom to independently study and research scientific areas of interest, the downside that comes with it is the resulting masses of published research and theories that couldn't hold water if even one other person looked at them.

It's a give and take system, overall I think we're better off for it but everyone should remain vigilant in their tempering of what they accept as fact when it comes to science. Remember the laws of physics? Even those were proven wrong when we discovered matter on the sub-atomic level so it's critical to keep a level head when deciding on a worldview.

"If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".

2. "Something from nothing" isn't science...it's religion. This reasoning argues against a creator, not the BB.

3. The universe always existing (as it is currently) is not a valid possibility given its current expansion. Running the clock in reverse, expansion equates to contraction, and this obviously cannot be maintained infinitely into the past. ...and, there are plenty of other options, such as, the universe came to be from a collision of branes, or energy (that later became our universe) has always existed, or ...godidit.

I do not think this is entirely accurate. We are inclined to romanticise old times, but the truth is that we only remember the most significant parts of them, forgetting the less significant ones, which constitute well over 99% of everything.

It may look like our scientific standards are dropping, when we compare our science to works of such giants as Newton, Tesla or Lebesgue. But the truth is, those scientists were merely a tiny group at the absolute top. We have intellectual giants today as well; Terence Tao arguably is the strongest mathematician in human history, for example. But how many Terence Taos are there? Several, at best. And us, mainstream scientists, are in hundreds thousands, most of us barely accomplishing anything worth a local newspaper article in our entire lives.

This is how it always has been. It is just that Newtons and Teslas are the ones we remember; we do not remember random John-Blacks who worked in science for 50 years, slightly pushed forward their narrow fields and left, to be purged from the pages of history.